[2025:RJ-JP:29169] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1948/2025 1. Meethi Devi W/o. Ramjilal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o. Khirni, Tehsil Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) 2. Naihnya S/o. Moharpal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. Khirni, Tehsil Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) 3. Maddu S/o. Moharpal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. Khirni, Tehsil Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) 4. Ramjilal S/o. Lakkha, Aged About 48 Years, R/o. Khirni Tehsil Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) 5. Ramswaroop S/o. Revadmal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o. Khirni Tehsil Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur. 2. District Collector, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) 3. Tehsildar, Tehsil Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan 4. Naib Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Malarna Chaudh, Tehsil Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Yadav JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 31/07/2025 1. A notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short “the Act of 1956”) was served upon the petitioners treating them as encroachers on a government land. [2025:RJ-JP:29169] (2 of 3) [CW-1948/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in possession of the subject land since last more than 35-40 years. Learned counsel submits that instead of regularising their possession, a notice under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 was issued for their ejectment from the subject premises. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid act of the Tehsildar, the petitioners have submitted statutory appeal under Section 75 of the Act of 1956 before the Court of Additional District Collector in the month of December, 2024 along-with the stay application. Learned counsel submits that inspite of passing of considerable time, neither stay application has been decided nor the main appeal has been decided and the Tehsildar is bent upon to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the prayer made in the instant writ petition indicates that the same notice issued by Tehsildar has been assailed before this Court by way of filing this petition against which an appeal has already been preferred by the petitioners before the Appellate Court. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners cannot be allowed to avail two parallel remedies at the same time assailing the same order before the Appellate Court and before this Court. 6. On this Count alone, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition, hence, the same is disposed of by issuing directions to the Additional District Collector to decide the stay [2025:RJ-JP:29169] (3 of 3) [CW-1948/2025] application submitted by the petitioners within a period of 15 days from today and he is further directed to make all possible endeavours to decide the pending appeal, expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter. 7. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/4